Hartfield v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 17 March 1930
• Docket Number: 28509
• Citation: 126 So. 830,156 Miss. 724
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HARTFIELD v. ANDERSON

126 So. 830

156 Miss. 724

HARTFIELD v. ANDERSON

No. 28509

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 17, 1930

1 EXEMPTION. Exemptionist, as citizen, householder, and head of family, could select truck worth less than $250 in lieu of property exempted by general provision (Hemingway's Code 1927, sections 1891, 1902).

Where judgment debtor lived on farm, and had household furniture plow tools, plow animals, cows, chickens, and the like, and in addition to his farm work, he was using truck to supplement his income by hauling gravel, etc., judgment debtor under Hemingway's Code 1927, section 1902, could as citizen, householder, and head of family, select truck worth less than $250 in lieu of property exempted by general provision, section 1891.

2. EXEMPTION. Exemptionist may select personal property of two hundred and fifty dollars in value out of any that he has, regardless of kind and character (Hemingway's Code 1927, sections 1891, 1902).

Hemingway's Code 1927, sections 1891 and 1902, construed together, provide an alternate right to exemptionist to select personal property of two hundred and fifty dollars in value out of any that he has, regardless of kind and character thereof, and, so long as that value is not exceeded in aggregate, exemptionist may select some articles out of those specified in general statute, and, counting all personal property of every class selected, make up balance in aggregate value up to two hundred and fifty dollars out of any other personal property.

Division B

APPEAL from circuit court of Marion county.

HON. J. Q. LANGSTON, Judge.

Action by C. J. Hartfield against Edmond Anderson in the justice court. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and procured the issuance of an execution which was levied on a motortruck belonging to defendant. Defendant claimed the thick to be exempt, but the justice court denied the claim of exemption, and on appeal circuit court entered judgment in favor of the exemption, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Sebe Dale, of Columbia, for appellant.

Section 1891, of Chapter 29, Code of 1927, on exempt property, fully sets out the personal property exempt to every citizen and householder. First and last the property set out therein is exempt. No other personal property in addition thereto is exempt.

Appellee complains that counsel for appellant cites no authorities to sustain his contention. There are no cases directly in point. Bank v. O'Neal, 86 Miss. 45, sustains the claim of exemptionist to two hundred fifty dollar personal property but it specifically sets out that it was all the personal property owned by exemptionist. Other cases might be cited but they show exemptionist had no other property or are silent as to other property. Not one can be found that holds that exemptionist can claim both.

Rawls & Hathorn, of Columbia, for appellee.

It is appellee's contention that under exemption laws, a householder who is the head of a family can either claim as exempt any or all of the articles specified under subhead (Ninth), section 1891, or he can waive his right to claim his exemptions under subhead Nine of section 1891, and claim personal property of his choice and selection up to two hundred and fifty dollars in value, under section 1902, and this is true even though some of the personal property which he selects claimed as exempt under section 1902, might have been claimed as exempt under section 1891.

Bank v. O'Neal, 86 Miss. 53.

Exemption laws of the state to the head of a family, cannot be waived by an executory contract.

Teague v. Weeks, 89 Miss. 361, 42 So. 172; 18 Cyc 1450.

OPINION

Griffith, J.

Appellant, having obtained a personal judgment against appellee in the justice court on a money demand, procured the issuance of an execution which was levied on a motortruck, belonging to the judgment debtor and valued at one hundred and twenty-five dollars. Appellee thereupon filed his affidavit claiming the said property as exempt to him as a citizen and householder and head of a family. Upon a trial of the claimant's issue, the justice court denied the claim of exemption, and the claimant appealed to the circuit court, which court entered judgment in favor of the exemption, and the judgment creditor appeals to this court.

On the trial it was shown that the exemptionist lives on a farm in the country, and has household furniture, plow tools, plow animals, cows, chickens, and the like, the value of which are not shown. The further proof was that in addition to his farm work, the exemptionist was using the said truck to supplement his income by hauling gravel, or anything else he could find to do along that line.

In the general section of the statutes dealing with exemptions to a...